Is this article an example of liberal media bias?

[Red Harvest]

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.

I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation. It isn't libertarian, it is a case of conservatives masquerading as liberatians. I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."

Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.

Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.

Claim what you like, but the House and GOP leadership were working tightly with the President to work in lockstep. The GOP conventions were a farce. Now they want to show dissenting views. Too late, they sold out and the nation is finally catching on.

I'll tell you one thing: While I've had a mix of views that have kept me firmly in the "independent" camp in the past. I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings. Moderate or independent are not dirty words, despite conservative attempts to paint them so. (Yes, I've seen MANY examples of that here.)

[Aurelian]

This isn't an example of liberal media bias.

I've seen the video with the soldiers being coached. It's real. The event was staged. The soldiers knew the type of questions that would be asked beforehand, and they knew who was to answer each question, and in what order.

That being said, where is the bias? If you read bias into the piece, it's likely to be because your own bias for the Bush team leads you to be defensive when an article suggests that his team "staged" an event. It's an accurate description of what happened, but "staged" carries an implicit negative connotation for most people.

However, Bush's events are usually staged. What would be the purpose otherwise? His PR team uses these events to create an image that they hope will resonate with the viewing public. They don't take chances and randomly pick people to ask him questions (or answer his questions). If somebody asked him a tough question, or gave a negative answer, the coverage of their 'media event' would be dominated by the slip-up. Their job is to keep on message, so they make sure all the participants keep on message.

As an example of just how staged and calculated these events are, Bush's people cancelled a Texas appearance that he had scheduled a few weeks ago during hurricane Rita because the venue was too sunny. You see, they didn't want sunny because their message was that he was in Texas to deal with the hurricane. Sun does not equal hurricane in a visual image. So, they cancelled the event.

President Bush doesn't communicate through town hall meetings, his team prefers to operate under controlled conditions where they can ensure that the people who interact with him are loyalists.

If you don't like that, then your problem should be with the Bush team and not with a reporter who accurately portrays their methods.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Just because conservatives are going out of style doesn't mean the media is bias

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

[Slyspy]

LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.

[Devastatin Dave]

That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.

The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.

That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?

Liberals, like myself love the troops. I support them all the time. I hate to see them fail and them die. The grim reality is, we invaded there country. If we're going to do that, they can make us leave them alone by whatever measures they feel nessasary. If that involves blowing themselves up, then that's what they think they must do.

[Strike For The South]

That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?

Liberals, like myself love the troops. We love them so much we want them out of danger. If conservatives were TRUELY commited to the soldiers they'd stop throwing them away.

Please tell me you are intoxicated...please

[Red Harvest]

I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

Lambasting a foolish, shortsighted, unprepared Administration that is in denial for its mishandling of the efforts does not undercut the troops. Quite the opposite. I support our troops and would have no problem putting my own neck on the line. However, I refuse to sit silently while fools in govt mismanage the war. This isn't about our fighting men and women. This is about the incompetent boobs that failed to properly support them. That would be Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.

In addition to mishandling the post invasion, they launched the war under false pretenses/justification, and our soldiers are paying the price for the politicians' errors. It undercut us and encouraged the insurgency.

I'm not for setting deadlines for withdrawal in public, it only helps the enemy. But I do expect results. You either do something to force the win, or you get out. Sitting there taking a beating indefinitely for no gain is STUPID in the extreme. At some point, a decision must be made as to whether this is salvageable or a quagmire.

Trying to shift blame to the opposition is foolish. Sheehan and the others didn't screw up this war. Dubya and his legion of simpleton cronies did that. There were voices of dissent in his own party and within the military about what the effort would require, but they were ingnored and ridiculed. Instead, the occupation was done with one hand tied behind our back, all for the sake of political appearances.

What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Couldn't have said it better myself

Well for once your totally correct.

By the way as someone who went through this sort of liberal hogwash I can tell you nothing demoralises the troops more than hearing people like you guys claim to support us while undermining our mission. Its the height of hypocrisy.

[Devastatin Dave]

What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.

And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And the press is suppossed to seek the truth not just pursue their own agenda.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...

What about me?

[Red Harvest]

And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.

What a load of CRAP! First of all, I've yet to see these "terrorist sympathizing liberals." They aren't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Second, liberals didn't create this situation. The poorly considered Iraqi operation did. To put it another way, if someone can't run an operation without having 100% support at home, then their plan is totally unworkable and doomed from the start. Is that your position, that some dissent is the reason the war is not being won?

I was one of those misguided independents that favored going in. I honestly did not believe the Administration could screw this up, and because of European/Arab pressures to end the sanctions, we were reaching a critical point (thanks again France, Germany, etc. ) My disgust with the Administration has grown out of the strategic blunders used to launch the war, and out of their continued misunderstanding of what they were up against. I'm not letting that color my perception of our forces, but it does effect my judgement of what they can now accomplish.

We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.

Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.

If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.

Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Bam...

[Devastatin Dave]

If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.

I believe Cuba would be more your type of Island, RED HARVEST

[Xiahou]

We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.

Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.

If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.

Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.

Dissent is well and fine. But, when it consists of nothing but a litany of complaints with no constructive ideas I think it does give a certain level of comfort to our enemies. It shows we are divided and don't support the goals of the military and could give hope that we'll pull out.

There is a difference between saying 'The administration is mismanaging this war, instead of xyz we should be doing abc.' vs 'The administration is mismanaging this war, their bungling is losing the war.'

I'm not going to try to say that an American doesnt have the right to say whatever they want- but some statements can undercut the war effort.

[Vykke]

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that an article can contain no falsehoods, yet still be biased. Bias can be shown in which facts are presented, and where, and how.

In addition to some of the word choices mentioned already, it's interesting to note that they spent about 1/3 of the article emphasizing the choreographed nature of the "conversation," even including that little excerpt of the preparations. This seems to imply that it's exceptional and newsworthy that a political leader planned an event like this ahead of time (after all, articles don't usually spend that much space discussing the planned nature of such an event). But it's not exceptional at all, they do it all the time.

So, I'd have to say that this article is biased, though I agree with Hurin that there's plenty of examples of conservative bias too.

[Idaho]

The US media is probably the most stayed, tame and controlled media in the western world. US politicians are the most controlling, rehearsed and closed in the western world.

The US people are a lovely bunch* who deserve better


*exceptions exist

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Why thank you. I'm more like an englishman like yourself, but I still live in America

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation.

Where am I ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation?

I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."

Well that aint me. I guess ill call you a kneejerk liberal from now on. Come on tell what libertarian principles I dont like?

Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.

More BS. Weve had pretty much the same complaints about Bush for the last 4 or 5 years.

I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings

The truth is coming out. Your not a liberal just an anti conservative LOL.

One more time I hate both parties. I have never voted republican though in my youth I did vote democratic. You can believe what you like but i know where I stand.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You've never voted republican and you've voted democratic?

Hey, I'm liking you more and more!

EDIT: I actually don't know if I'd even vote Kerry. I just want to be free of anything. I need to move to 'utopia'...

[Tribesman]

I have never voted republican
Despite all the Bush is great rubbish and GOP is the RIGHT way , you can never bring yourself to vote for the muppets .
Fair play to ya Gawain

[Red Harvest]

Where am I ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation?

Oh please...I've yet to see you take anything other than the conservative approach, and that includes the private matters side of things.

The truth is coming out. Your not a liberal just an anti conservative LOL.

And it is folks like you that have made this change in my thinking over the past two years. I don't embrace the liberal or the conservative dogma, and have a scattering of views. One thing I have figured out, I don't have much to fear from the weakened liberals, but I do have a lot to fear from an out-of-control conservative movement tearing down decades of progress. The "conservative" business leaders went after pensions and health care, the conservative govt. is going after Social Security, and the conservative business leaders have stagnated and stalled their industries, while a conservative president hasn't shown any vision toward preparing this country for the economic future.

One more time I hate both parties.

Yes, Gawain, I've noticed you hate a lot of things. Something to be proud of I suppose.

I have never voted republican though in my youth I did vote democratic. You can believe what you like but i know where I stand.

I have gotten the distinct impression that you actually have no idea where you stand. It became very clear during the "club" formation craze a few months back. You were seeking to belong to all clubs, or control all discussion--it was a Gawain frenzy.

I've seen the same in religious threads, where one minute you are siding completely with the religious conservative view, then the next you are saying something about not being sure you believe in God, but still supporting their view.

Until the last few weeks you've been downright worshipful of Bush and the GOP, while at the same time claiming you don't vote for them. So I'm left with the conclusion that either you just like to play devil's advocate, or you are way out on the GOP right wing.

You seem to enjoy lumping everyone as either conservative or liberal, with no one in the middle or being split. Folks like McCain and anyone moderate are dismissed as being weak because they don't have extreme views, therefore in your mind they lack conviction.

By the way, I would much rather be called a liberal than a conservative anymore. Liberal was made into a dirty word during the Reagan era as the result of Carter, but right now the same is being done with "conservative." This is inevitable whenever one extreme is pushed too far, a backlash develops. What I still find doubly funny is conservatives spitting out "moderate" with the same tone used for liberal.